Would a guilty person have kept the case alive for 6 years?

[Lyall]

As I said, there are no facts as such to back up my belief that the TP7 (9) are not 100% honest. It's just a feeling I have due to the discussion of timeline, JTs changing story and so on.

I guess we are all in a position where we don't need to give facts to back up our assumptions. I guess if I was asked in court if they were being 100% honest then I couldn't say that they weren't. That's a luxury we have though on forums (obviously potential libel taken into consideration)

That doubt is expressed in the only book ever published on the case in the UK, which doesn't make it a fact obviously, but it does remind us we're not alone.

[icabodcrane]

As I said, there are no facts as such to back up my belief that the TP7 (9) are not 100% honest. It's just a feeling I have due to the discussion of timeline, JTs changing story and so on.

I guess we are all in a position where we don't need to give facts to back up our assumptions. I guess if I was asked in court if they were being 100% honest then I couldn't say that they weren't. That's a luxury we have though on forums (obviously potential libel taken into consideration)

Absolutely

This is not a court of law  ...  it is a  forum   ...  and we are not bound by the  'presumed innocent'  principle

We can discuss,  and theorise , and hypothesize  ( within reason ),  and express our opinions  ( whether they are factually based,  or intuitive  ) 

That is what makes this forum exceptional and unique  ...  you won't find another place,  that I am aware of,  where free-thinking debate on this case is  welcome

You've stumbled into a haven for the 'OpenMinded'   

[Luz]

You know, I don't think I have ever been on a forum where so many arguments are strawman, ad hominem or argumentum ad populum (and many other fallacies) but I've taken a great interest in this case over the years and have lurked here for a while. So I thought, despite my misgivings about some of the arguing on here I wanted to put my view across. Anyway I hope that some of you from both sides can perhaps agree with some of my points, if not then maybe my time here will be short.

So to the question in this topic. Would a guilty person have kept the case alive for 6 years? To be honest, there is a really simple answer to this question. Who knows... There's only one person who knows what GM is thinking and there's only one person who knows what KM is thinking. Arguing over this question serves no purpose since none of us know, weather innocent of crime or not (more on that shortly), what drives these two. We can all make supposition that they are doing it to cover their tracks or doing it to find their daughter but this requires us to firstly assume innocence or guilt. And this in turn automatically puts us all pro vs anti and the arguments continue, strawman, ad hominem... and so on.

Personally, I have an open mind on this case, as my user name suggests, however I sway from one side to the other depending upon the "facts" put to the public. I guess you could say I sit on the fence a fair bit. I think I should just explain why I've put "facts" in quotation marks. Well it is a fact that the Smiths said they saw a man carry a child but it is not a fact that it actually happened. The difference to me is key to this case. Anyone can claim or counter claim but with out corroboration, it is still just a claim. The claim is factual as in the claim was made, the actual details of that claim may not be. And for this reason I take all claims with a pinch of salt.

So it is certainly possible that GM and KM could keep a lie going for 6 years but it is also possible that they wouldn't be able to (or had no need to!). As I said, I just don't think arguing about this adds anything to the case other than to set pro against anti. What I do think is 100% fact though is that Madeline was let down by the adults who should have been there for her, by her parents, by the Tapas 7 and by the police, both Portuguese and British. It is also a fact that Madeline is missing but it is not yet a fact that she is dead or a fact that she is alive. It is not a fact that her parents were involved and it is not a fact that they weren't. It is not a fact that she was a victim of infanticide, murder, abduction or tragic accident. In my mind these questions are still open.

It also seems to be a fact to me that none of the evidence is water tight and the recent "breakthrough" from SY does nothing to change this. If anything it just raises more questions and makes me doubt the evidence given by all concerned even more. Personally, I believe the balance of probabilities points towards Madeline being dead and I also think it is probable that the McCanns and tapas 7 haven't been 100% honest. But I can't back this up with facts as its just a feeling I have given all the evidence as I see it.

Anyway, I've rambled a bit and probably gone way off topic so i'll leave it there for now.

I agree with you entirely. I know that sometimes (many times) I get carried away when I read unfounded accusations in order to take a position, but I concur that we, as mere spectators, can only discuss the news or no-news and elaborate intellectually, formulating mere hypothesis. But none of us know what in fact happened.

[hustling01]

If they did it and knew she would never be found then yes they would keep it open knowingly by keeping it going it would fool the police into thinking would they keep pushing for action? Thus it makes them look innocent.

[pathfinder73]

If they did it and knew she would never be found then yes they would keep it open knowingly by keeping it going it would fool the police into thinking would they keep pushing for action? Thus it makes them look innocent.

Good post and welcome to the forum and it's not like they've got a choice. If they're guilty they don't want anyone else to know it. Somebody always seems more concerned about what her mother thinks before herself. I wonder if that person hated the nickname MaddY? Because SeanY seems fine  >@@(*&)

[pegasus]

...always...

may be a bit of a generallsation when the examples you can quote can be counted on the fingers of one finger?